Any lounge lawyers hanging around?

[ApK]

I figure there must be a BUNCH of lawyers here, just THRILLED at the idea of spending their free time answering legal questions....

So I'm going to ask one:

On the Brother website (and I'm just using Brother as an example at hand) they repeatedly say:

"The Brother limited warranty does not apply to any problem that is caused by the use of third party drum units, toner cartridges or toner."

Doesn't the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act make that illegal, saying if they offer a warranty, it MUST be honored even with the use of third party parts?

Just wondering.

[Deskisamess]

Brother can't make you buy toner from them in order to preserve your warranty.

"The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 The Act does not allow tie-in sales. For instance, a printer manufacturer can't require you to buy an item, such as ink, or service from it to keep your warranty intact. The Act, however, does not require that manufacturers fix problems caused by third-party goods or services."

Not a lawyer, advice is worth the price paid.

From here: https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/c...nty-25320.html

[ApK]

Ah. So the "warranty" stays, but if they claim the third party item was the cause of the problem, they can say the warranty doesn't cover it. Seems like a pretty big loophole, if they don't actually have to prove the cause of the problem.

(for the record, this is mostly idle curiosity, I'm not having any sort of warranty or printer problem....I'm just evaluating the risks of buying generic toner, and I went down a rabbit hole reading about it.)

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by ApK

Ah. So the "warranty" stays, but if they claim the third party item was the cause of the problem, they can say the warranty doesn't cover it. Sees like a pretty big loophole, if they don't actually have to prove the cause of the problem.

(for the record, this is mostly idle curiosity, I'm not having any sort of warranty or printer problem....I'm just evaluating the risks of buying generic toner, and I went down a rabbit hole reading about it.)

I'm not a lawyer - these are just my personal thoughts:

If you have an expensive printer and are concerned that you are likely to need warranty service, you could consider buying name brand toner for the limited time period covered by the warranty, then switch to aftermarket supplies after the warranty expires.

If you have a cheap printer, consider the cost savings of buying aftermarket supplies vs the cost of replacing the printer. If you're going to save a lot of money by buying cheap toner, it may be worth the risk.

Edited to add that we use aftermarket toner (various random brands, whatever is on sale cheap) in Brother all-in-ones (these are laser, not inkjet, don't know if that makes a difference) at work and haven't had any problems.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by ApK

I figure there must be a BUNCH of lawyers here, just THRILLED at the idea of spending their free time answering legal questions....

So I'm going to ask one:

On the Brother website (and I'm just using Brother as an example at hand) they repeatedly say:

"The Brother limited warranty does not apply to any problem that is caused by the use of third party drum units, toner cartridges or toner."

Doesn't the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act make that illegal, saying if they offer a warranty, it MUST be honored even with the use of third party parts?

Just wondering.

I am an attorney, so I will open this with a disclaimer:

The following statement does not represent legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. I am licensed to practice state and federal law in the state of North Carolina. The following statements are for educational purposes only and do not apply to any individual case.

Now then... The MM Act is designed to protect consumers by making the language of warranties simple, laying out how a warrantor can honor the warranty and some things that a warrantor can and cannot do.

For example, a warranty cannot violate anti-trust laws. However, a warranty can set out the terms of what will void that warranty as long as it is in plain language. For instance, attempting to "unlock" an e-reader voids the warranty as to almost every e-reader company. At one point in time, even attempting to open up a MacBook and look inside could void the warranty

But contractually, it is well within a printer company's rights to say that if you want us to pay for repairs or replace it when you break it, you can only use ink and toner products that we have stated are compatible with the product. It is their way of protecting themselves from grey market companies who stick a label on a box when it is not, in fact, ink or toner that was ever meant to work with that printer. If I'm Epson, I don't want to pay out a warranty on my user because they could not be bothered to use the ink that is designed for that printer.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

But contractually, it is well within a printer company's rights to say that if you want us to pay for repairs or replace it when you break it, you can only use ink and toner products that we have stated are compatible with the product. It is their way of protecting themselves from grey market companies who stick a label on a box when it is not, in fact, ink or toner that was ever meant to work with that printer. If I'm Epson, I don't want to pay out a warranty on my user because they could not be bothered to use the ink that is designed for that printer.

I emphasized the "because" because I believe that's relevant. The stated point of this part of the law is to prevent "tie-in" sales, making the warranty dependent on buying a certain company's parts.
So I interpret my reading of the law, and interpretations like the one above from Deskisamess, to mean HP can say "the problem is the toner cartridge overheated and destroyed the printer. It's an aftermarket toner, so we're not fixing the printer under warranty." But they cannot say "The problem is that the LCD light went out, but you used an aftermarket toner, so we're not fixing the printer under warranty."
Does that seem to be the case? Otherwise there would appear to be no consumer protection against tie-in sales at all.

By the way, we're getting a new small Canon color laser printer, which costs well under $300. Canon toner costs around $300 for a set of all four colors, while well-reviewed aftermarket toners are $60 for the set of four.
I think I'm going aftermarket....

[Deskisamess]

I think a black high yield cartridge for our Brother 3170 laser is about $72, a set of color cartridges is $170.

We won't buy 3rd party toner.